About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN2 12
CSPAN 11
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
CNN 2
CNNW 2
KNTV (NBC) 2
WRC (NBC) 2
WBAL (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 43
Search Results 0 to 42 of about 43 (some duplicates have been removed)
to be leon panetta's last day as the pentagon chief, but after a rocky confirmation hearing, senators' demands for other answers the replacement has been temporarily blocked. this is "special report." ♪ ♪ >> bret: good evening. i'm bret baier. bags are packed. ready to head out of town but leon panetta isn't riding nauf the sunset of california retirement yet. senate republicans are blocking a vote on panetta's embattled replacement over among other things questions about the libya terror attack last september. mike emanuel on what is holding up chuck hagel. >> they successfully delayed chuck hagel's controversial nomination as secretary of defense. late today, procedural vote failed after senator john mccain had made the case for waiting until after next week's recess. >> i think that is a sufficient period of time to get answers to outstanding questions and i think that senator hagel after that period of time deserves a cloture vote and a uvote on his. >> i have valued your thoughts and your contributions. i think most all of us in public office feel that way. >> among questions
to start with a washington battle on full display this week when the president's pick to head the pentagon, former republican senator chuck hagel, came under fire from members of his own party during a very contentious confirmation hearing. >> name one person in your opinion who's intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> are we right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> senator hagel, please answer the question i asked. today, do you think unilateral sanctions would be a bad idea? >> all this raising questions about how effective chuck hagel will be if confirmed as secretary of defense. earlier this weekend, i sat down for a rare joint interview with the top military leadership the outgoing secretary f defense leon panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. >>> secretary panetta, welcome back to "meet the press." general dempsey, welcome. let me start with the man that is poised to take your place. he underwent on thursday a pretty tough round of questioning. he seemed to struggle with a lot of the answers. of cou
reasons, the pentagon have made their own case to the president. with the new resource problem home -- problem in mali. look what it took to support french forces against al qaeda subcontractors. if we can't do that, when americans are held hostage and killed, what kind of response do you really expect for -- >> is that a consequence of the u.s. not getting involved in mali earlier? >> what is the implication from that? that we need to be involved -- >> we were concerned about molly for at least eight months. only now there is discussion about what we should -- >> have another discussion on benghazi for the thousandth time. >> we are in the in danger -- in no danger of intervening too much. that is not what we have to worry about. >> let's move on. if you have a question, raise your hands and identify yourself. keep your questions short. let's go to -- then this woman right here in the black. >> as joshua said, syria is part of a broader middle east. what would be the position of the u.s. when lebanon, jordan, maybe israel and the whole region would be unstable? should the u.s. the
effective leader at the pentagon. john brennan is somebody i worked with the at the director of cia and continued to work with in this capacity. i found him to be responsible about how we can effectively conduct operations again al qaeda and against those that would attack this country. he is -- as somebody said, a straight shooter. somebody who, you know, gives you his best opinion, he doesn't play games. he is somebody who i think, you know, can honestly represent the best protection in this country in that job. >> thank you very much. i want to thank you for your forthright comments today about the sequester. ironically, as i take some notes what you said and in the statement. it appears as of today the greatest threat to american national security is the united states congress. thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, senator. senator nelson. after senator nelson, the first round will be over. there may be a number of us that want a few minutes on the second round. you have been here for about three hours and you may need a fife or ten minute break. do you want that immediately foll
of the events of the events in benghazi. there were a series of meetings in the pentagon for expanding the department of defense's response as well as to prepare for the potential outbreak of further violence throughout the region. during these meetings, secretary panetta authorized a number of deployments. i hope that secretary panetta and the chairman will provide the committee with detail on the circumstances that led them to these decisions. since september, there's been a great deal of focus on the supporting role that the marine corps guards played -- play in many u.s. diplomatic missions abroad. the marine corps did not have an lament in again-- in benghazi. the committee will be closely monitoring the use of these marines. our fiscal year 2013 national defense authorization act that requires the secretary of defense to conduct an assessment of the mission of the marine security guard program, whether it should be expanded and to report to congress on the results of this review. more immediately, the provision requires the secretary to develop a plan to increase the number of ma
other americans. the pentagon never received the request from the state academy for security, and did not have the resources to get support on the ground in time to thwart the attackers. leon panetta is stepping down. this hearing is four hours and 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. today the committee welcomes secretary of defense, leon panetta, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. to testify about the department of defense's response the deadly terrorist attack on the u.s. temporary mission facility in benghazi, libya, last year. and the findings of its internal review following that attack, including lessons learned from benghazi. we will be receiving testimony next tuesday morning on the impact of sequestration and/or a full-year continuing resolution on the department of defense witnesses. there will be department secretary of defense, the comp driller and the joint chiefs of staff. i hope today's hearing with inform the committee of any changes being made or proposed to the posture of u.s.
that came out recently. it did suggest the pentagon is pushing the pentagon that would only keep 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the process so far, but can you support a plan that was scheduled withdraws troops in advance? you know, we're looking at withdraws troops in afghanistan and according to this article from a passing down to 1000 within a short period of time, i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdraw when sec previously, so much depends on the ground, what the government is doing, what variability eyes up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood with the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. certainly my advice is the commander on the ground or commander central command would provide my advice based upon breaking the security forces are and the conditions in theater and what i think we need to do to move forward to make sure we maintain the
talk shows and defended the man nominated to succeed him at the pentagon. panetta suggested the tough questioning senator hagel faced during third's capitol hill hearing, was driven by politics. >> it is pretty obvious the political knives were out for chuck hagel. what disappointed me is that they talked a lot about past quotes but what about when a secretary of defense is confronting today? we did not see enough time spent on discussing those issues. in the end that is what counted. >> he says hagel should have been questions about issues like afghanistan, the middle east, and the looming budget cuts at the pentagon but he came underfire for past statements of israel, iran, and u.s. nuclear strategy. at least 12 republicans plan to vote against hagel while only two, so far, have said they would vote for him. that is congress ran of mississippi, and a senator from nebraska. observers on both sides thought hagel did not do such a great job at the hearing. >> disconcerting thing, obviously fox anyone that watched it, he seemed unimpressive and unprepared on the questions that he knew w
your perspective on the pentagon's role in securing our embassies? we just had a near suicide attack, if you will, suicide bomber, at an embassy in turkey just last week. what can be done more than what has been done now? >> the important things to do are first of all you've got to build up the host country capacity. in the end, these embassies do depend on host country, the details that provide security. so you've got to try to develop that. >> this shouldn't be more marines? >> no, no. let me get the rest of the part of it. you have to harden these embassies as much as possible. and third, we have been working with the ste department to determine whether additional marines ought to be assigned to that area. and in the end, the final alternative is our ability to respond in having our troops in a position where they can respond quickly. but i have to tell you, a lot of that still is dependent on whether intelligence tells us that we've got a big problem, and gives us enough warning so that we can get to the place to respond. >> did you have enough time to get there in time? >> no. >
the drop program should fall under the pentagon, not the cia. you can listen to rebroadcast on c-span radio today. richards in result -- richard is on the line. what do you think about the drone's strikes? >> it is very vast modern-day technology. there will always be people killed a matter what we do. we have to grow up and understand that. the aclu is the biggest group of nuts on the planet. thank you. host: edmond, oklahoma. caller: i would just like to say one thing. the aclu is on the front of maintaining our constitutional rights. you may not agree with some of , but iflenges, i don't things they overall doing a good job. as far as the drones, they're working in that uncovered. in pakistan. i live in oklahoma and it has been in the paper recently that we have drone's being used here. one of your previous caller said there was a bill. from what i understand, we already have them here. we have a republican governor right now is in violation is not transparent, taking orders from right wing not jobs back east. and she now has these drones at her disposal. host: we heard earlier from form
to continue on the washington post article that came all recently. it did suggest that the pentagon is pushing a plan that would keep only 8000 troops in afghanistan. general austin, can you support a plan that was scheduled withdrawal of troops in advance? we are looking at the withdrawal of troops in afghanistan. according to this article, from 8000 to about 1000 in a short period and of time. i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdrawal when, as you stated previously, so much depends on troops on the ground, what the government is doing, what their abilities are at that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i would really work hard to make sure i fully understood what to the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. my advice as a commander on the ground or a commander of central command -- i would provide my advice to them based upon where i think the security forces are , the conditions in the theater, and what i think we need to do to move full word to make sure we maintai
get it worse? i worked in the pentagon. it would have made it a lot better. so we realized you really have to go after the people who do the work, people who do logistics, communications, pass information, do car bombs, you have to take those out. we came up with a strategy, philadelphia would love this. it is like rocky balboa and apollo creed. we'll hit them in the midsection and hit them a lot. from august of 2004 when we did 18 raids, two years, later, same month, same force, same fight, we were doing 300 raids a month. that was ten a night. now, if you stop and you say, well, ten a night, that's a lot, that's impressive. that means every raid guy on the force is going on a raid at least one raid every night. every pilot's flying one or 2:00 raids every night. and these raids are not patrols. this is not with foot, these are going in the door, somebody is getting shot. extraordinary, and to do that though you can't use previous systems. one you've got to be able to bring in this intelligence on an industrial scale. you have got to be able -- we got to the point where instead of th
coming out of the pentagon. one i was looking up now because i wanted to remember the numbers, and that was that the pentagon is beefing up cybersecurity forces, taking it from 900 to 4000 and putting a few billion dollars into it. the other one that is being beefed up in these times of budgetary constraints are the special forces. tom, would you talk about that generally? if you would talk about that in a broad nature and then we will come over to the nonexistent challenge that faces in asia. >> i will try to be brief. these are certainly needed and are believed to exploit, you know, this is pretty critical. but it is not qualitatively different from other forms of intelligence gathering or attempts by propaganda or by the military were a strategic situation. the special operations forces, to some degree in, is understandable. but as fred alluded to, we must direct action to magically appear and sustain themselves. if you have seen "zero dark thirty", it's a great picture of how the intelligence went and then the heroine appears at this brown looking base in afghanistan and a
with the pentagon, first with bob gates and mike mullah, then with leon panetta and marty dempsey. by the same token, america's traditional allies and friends in europe and east asia remain invaluable partners on nearly everything we do and we have spent considerable energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years and i would be quick to add, the u.n., the i.m.f., the world bank and nato, are also still essential. but all of our institutions and our relationships need to be modernized and complemented by new institutions, relationships and partnerships, that are tailored for new challenges and modeled to the needle -- needle of a variable landscape, like how we elevated the g20 during the financial crisis or created the climate and clean air coalition out of the state department to fight short lived pollutants like black carbon, or worked with partners like turkey where the two of us stood up the first global counterterrorism forum. we're also working more than ever with invigorated regional organizations. consider the african union and somalia and the arab league in libya, even subregiona
it through the bureaucracies of the pentagon. america needs chuck as our secretary of defense to bring our troops home and keep our military the strongest in the world. sergeant hagel was an american hero. when so many americans were dodging the draft he volunteered to serve in vietnam. the draft board gave him the option to return to college but chuck refused. he said i think the best thing for me is to go in the army. it may not be the best thing for the army but i think that's the way to get all this straightened out. yfsz the oldest of four boys, he said, my sphawr passed away and i just was not coming together the way i should. there was a war going on in vietnam, i felt a sense of some responsibility so i said no, i think it's time to go. and so i volunteered for the draft. went in the army and celebrated my 21st birthday in white sands missile range. and chuck didn't serve in a safe bullet. when assigned to germany he volunteered for vietnam and saw the horrors of war as an infrant fantdry sergeant. he hand his brother tom are the only known american brothers to serve side by side i
their motivations are. more on that in a moment, but first, chris lawrence at the pentagon. chris, the turkish government says it does have a bit more sense of who the attacker was, what are they saying? >> reporter: erin, they think it is a man named etchvech shamly. they say he trained in europe on how to make bombs and has attacked before. the group is a throwback to the cold war, a far left revolutionary group that wants to overthrow turkey's government and establish some sort of communist state. >> and why would they target the u.s. embassy? >> reporter: they are anti-capitalists and they're very, very opposed to the u.s. and nato. analysts say probably two reasons for this attack. one is to embarrass the turkish government. two is to protest the presence of u.s. patriot missiles on turkish soil. right now, 400 american troops are in turkey and they are moving that patriot missile battery into position on turkey's border with syria. turkey requested that help because of the mortars flying in from syria and they wanted the american missile to help shoot it down. >> and chris, how was the a
've seen two budget-related announcements coming out of the pentagon. one, i was looking up just now because i was trying to remember the numbers, and that is that the pentagon is beefing up its cybersecurity force, taking it from 900 to 4,000 and putting a few billion dollars into it. the other one that is apparently being beefed up in these times of budgetary constraints are the special forces. tom, would you just talk about that generally and then, fred, if you would talk about that not just in afghanistan, but in the broader battle and the nature of it, and then we'll come over to publish shah and the non-- membership shah and the nonexistent challenge that faces us in asia. [laughter] >> i'll try to be brief, dani. look, these new capabilities, you know, cyber operations or whatever you want to call them are certainly necessary and needed, and our ability to exploit, you know, the electromagnetic spectrum configured as the internet is, you know, pretty critical. but it's not qualitatively different from other forms of intelligence gathering or, you know, attempts to either by pr
no auditable books in the pentagon. panetta, that's the one agency of government that has never submitted an audited set of books in history. >> bill: wow. >> not one -- and frankly by itself, that would i think provide an ability to really see where we're throwing money away. and again, secretary panetta, to his credit, has got a mandate within the four branches to basically say 2014, we've got to do this. frankly, it is going to be interesting to see if they can hit this goal. the size of the pentagon is bigger than 90 countries gdp. so but again so yes there's definitely smart savings that you can do there. again, i would go back to the afghanistan expenditure $2 billion a week we're spending over there. no one thinks we're going to have a combat mission after 2014. so you know, that's money that we're not going to be spending. and so really, the opportunities are there to avoid again by the way, the bipartisan policy center, "new york times" yesterday, said a million jobs will be lost if sequestration goes through. cbo says 1.4. >> bill: congressman, a lot of battles to fight. we're g
. at the challenge the people currently at the pentagon are facing. host: fredericksburg, virginia, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. there's nothing worse than a great secretary and nothing better than a wonderful one. most of the individuals who work for our government appear not to have the wherewithal to know exactly what to do and appear to be on training wheels while they are learning. we the taxpayer take the brunt of everything. while you are a very unstudied lady and are only given the credentials you have having a report card to show who you are, this individual appears to be a floater guest: i think that is unfair. he has done a number of things throughout his career. he is not only a senator, but he was a deputy administrator at the department of veterans affairs. that is a massive responsibility. he cofounded one of the bigges
of those confirmed by the pentagon, making him the mosley that will sniper in american history. one thing about that is that chris was very unassuming and i remember knowing a little bit about his background but then meeting chris for the first time and how humble he was and how down to earth he was. he didn't really talk about records, he talked about people. he talked about what his job was, was to protect his fellow soldiers. his ability in the battlefield was unmatched. his longest shot came in 2008 when he identified an enemy insurgent that was about to launch a rocket near an army convoy. from 1.2 miles away, he fired his .338 magnum rifle and killed the insurgent, potentially saving the lives of countless americans. chris was rewarded -- awarded countless honors for his various he earned two silver starks five bronze stars, two navy and marine corps achievement medals and one navy and marine corps commendation. he was admires by people really all over the country. on this monday, about 7,000 or 8,000 people gathered in the dallas cowboys stadium in dallas, texas, to come and pay th
reasons, the pentagon and the planners have made their own case to the president. and with the new resource problem we confronted in mali, look what it took to support french against al qaeda sub contractors. if we can't do that when in fact americans are held hostage and killed, what kind of response do you really expect for . >> is that a consequence of the u.s. not getting involved in mali earlier? >> what is the implication from that we in effect need to be involved -- . >> the u.s. has been concerned about mali for at least eight nows. -- months only now there's a discussion about where we should do more. >> look, in the time of the great extra cater. we are -- that -- what is threaten, our foreign policy is not manic interventionism right now. that's not what we have to worry about here. >> let's move on. if you have a question, raise your hand. i'm going ask you to identify yourself. keep your question short. let's go to [inaudible] of radio-- and then go to the woman right here in the black and hand the microphone to her. >> hi, my name is -- [inaudible] that syria is part
and commented on the pentagon lifting of the ban on women in the front lines of combat. one of the speakers was the first female pilot to fly in combat. here's a little of what she had to say. >> sitting in a squatter officer school, i was getting ready to go to fighter training, i just completed the triathlon, a bunch of injured 3, special forces, i take to their -- kicked their butts, and you had guys saying, "women don't have the endurance to do, admissions." you want to go outside and talk about this? [laughter] let's go for a run. the difficulty and the reason -- and seeing it even in the debates that are going on even though the train has left the station, a lot of people who are against this thing get away with you have been excluded from doing this, you have not done it, i have done it, therefore you cannot do it. i don't know if you have seen the nuances on tv lately. sure, you have been in combat and engaged with the enemy anbut that is the different from sustained operations. that is the language you are hearing, on fox, and it might. [laughter] -- fox, anyway. [laughter] justin
of the c-span video library at c-span.org. live now to the pentagon for a briefing on civilian layoffs related to the pending sequester cuts happening next week. >> we have notified congress today about potential furlough. today with us we have our undersecretary, mr. robert hale and acting undersecretary jessica wright. here to address questions they do have some comments they would like to start with with respect to sequestration and the actual action that we took today with congress on furlough. then they will be available to take your questions. i will help them in getting your questions address. >> okay. well, good afternoon. today the department faces some the enormous budgetary uncertainty really imperiled in my experience. possibility of sequestration starting on march 1st. by the end of march could mean a 46 billion-dollar reduction in our total topline 9% in all of our accounts except military personnel including wartime accounts. we will protect the wartime operating accounts, but that means larger, disproportionate cuts in the base budget operation and maintenance accounts.
of the partnership that the state department has forms with the pentagon first with bob gates and then mike mullen and then leon panetta and marty dempsey. by the same token america's traditional allies and friends in europe and east asia remains a valuable partners on nearly everything we do and we have spent considerable energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. and i would be quick to add the u.n., the imf and the world bank and nato are also still essential. but all of our institutions and our relationships need to be modernized, and complemented by new institutions, relationships and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and modeled to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the g20 during the financial crisis or created the climate and clean air coalition out of the state department to fight short-lived pollutants like black carbon or work with partners like turkey, where the two listed up the first global counterterrorism form. we are also working more than ever with invigorated regional organizations. consider the african union in somalia and th
. i am very proud of the partnership that the state department has formed with the pentagon versus we on panetta and marty dempsey. by the same token americans traditional allies or friends in europe and east asia remain a valuable partner on nearly everything we do. we have spent considerable energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. and i would would be clicked to add the u.n. the imf and the world bank and nato are also still essential. but all of our institutions and our relationships need to be modernized and complemented by new institutions, relationships and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and models to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the chi 20 during the financial crisis, or created the climate and clean air coalition out of the state department to fight short lived pollutants like black carbon or worked with partners like turkey where the two of us stood up the first global counterterrorism forum. we are also working more than ever with invigorated regional organizations. consider the african union in somalia and the
there and can be a very effective leader at the pentagon. john brennan is somebody i worked with as director of the c.i.a. and continue to work with in this capacity. and i always found him to be very responsible about how we can effectively conduct operations against al qaeda and against those that would attack this country. he is somebody a straight shooter, somebody who gives you his best opinion. he doesn't play games. he's someone who i think can really honestly represent the best protection of this country in that job. >> thank you very much. and i want to thank you for your forth right comments today about the sequester. ironically as what you said in your statement, it appears the greatest threat to the united states security is the united states congress. thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. let me mention this, after senator nelson, the first round will be over. there may be a number of us who may want a few minutes on the second round and you two witnesses have been here for three hours and you may need a five or 10-minute break. do you want that following senator nelson or go
essential. i'm proud of the partnerships the state department has formed with the pentagon. america's traditional allies and friends in europe and east asia remain in valuable partners in nearly everything we do. we've spent energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. the un and world bank and nato are still essentials. all of our institutions and relationships check need to be modernized and complemented by new institutions and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and model to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the g-20 during the financial crisis or created the climate and clean air coalition to fight short live pollutants like black carbon. or work with parties where we stood up the first global terrorism forum. we are working with organizations. consider the arab league in libya. even the lower mekong initiative that we created to help reintegrate burma into its neighborhood and try to work across national boundaries on whether dams should or should not be billult. ilt. world, people want to actually show up. a secretary state mig
, there is concern of layoffs. the dimensions darpa -- you d darpa. the except the restraints on the pentagon plus those coming into play, that have negative impacts? >> we are not a big player in that space anymore. i think a little bit of catalyst is something you see in every corner of the world. whether it is europe or china or anyplace else, i did not go to one place where there is no one government at all. the private sector is still very strong here and innovative. the private sector can pick up a lot. just getting it done. the will be such a value in a just getting some of these things behind us so we can adjust to move forward. the sigh of relief is incredibly important right now. i am an optimist. it does not end with a discussion on washington. we can compete. the work force of the to this country is as good as any in the world. >> thank you for the optimistic note. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] moste church is boston's visited historic site. half a million come to the church every year because
on that "washington post" article that came out recently. it did suggest that the pentagon is pushing a plan that we keep on about 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the planning process thus far, but can you supported plan that would scheduled withdrawal of troops in advance? you know, we are looking at withdrawal of troops in afghanistan, and according to this article from about 8000 down to 1000 within a very short period of time. i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdrawal when, as you stated previously, so much depends upon conditions on the ground, what the government is doing, what their abilities are up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood what the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. and i certainly, my advice as a commander on the ground or commander of central command, i would provide my advice based upon where i think the security forces are, a
Search Results 0 to 42 of about 43 (some duplicates have been removed)